Does God have a favorit race of people?

[SanMan]

Hello Everybody,
I'm new to this forum and I’ve been doing some thinking. And I want your thoughts on this too. This is for all you people who believe in God. If you don’t really believe in God you might not want to waste your time on this stuff. You might wanna pursue something else that’s worthwhile to you. Does God favor one race over another? Hmm? That’s a good question to ask yourself. Isn’t it?
I pose this question because it’s pretty evident that there are differences in the races. This spectrum of the races ranges all the way from the Whites to the blacks. It varies greatly. Oh yes, God is a god of variety. Variety is the spice of life. Right? I think God may have done it this way not only to make life interesting but also to show his great range. Wouldn’t you say? I’m a black guy and am 48 now. This reminds me of something some white guy was telling me 15 or 20 years ago. He was telling me that all the different races had their own vibrations frequency. And that the higher the frequency the more intelligent and good looking and classier and whatever else they are. In short the better you are. Then he said that White people had the highest vibration frequency and that blacks had the lowest frequency. Now at the time I wasn’t trying to hear none of that. That was a bunch of stupidness I thought. And who the heck does he think he is. The arrogant S.O.B. Thinking he’s better than me.
Now years later after some not so great experiences and having a little time to digest things and reflect I guess I sort of agree with him a little bit. I don’t know about the vibrations bit but there is a natural difference emanating from the genes of the races I think. Like I was telling this White pastor friend of mine when I was living in Spokane, WA. If you really look all throughout history, what race of people would you say was the most blessed race of all the races? The White race. Right? They had (and still do mind you) the best of everything. And in great abundance too. They were the pioneers in everything. They also dominated the other races. Whether it be enslaving them or taking their land or what have you. So I submit to you that God does bless or favor one race of people more so than any other. And there’s also a hierarchy of the races involved too. Whites at the top. Blacks at the bottom. Now don’t get me wrong guys after looking at the big picture I think it’s a perfectly designed scenario. Now I might not be the most ecstatic person in the world about it because the role I play in this movie is not the lead role. I’m actually more akin to one of the dare I say it …ahem… bad guys. Now whenever I suggest to a black person that Whites are …and I hate to use this term… “better� than blacks and that that’s the way God designed it. They get like I was 15 or 20 years ago and just ain’t goin for it. No way. No how. I never did ask a White person that though. But I suspect I know how they’ll respond based on what I’ve seen on film interviews and also what I’ve read. But that’s just a suspicion. I really would like to get your opinions on this question though. Regardless of what race you are. So please tell everybody what you think about this and your age and what race you are. Ok?


Remember now:

1) Do you think that God has blessed or favored one race of people more than the others?
2) If so which race has he blessed more so than any other?
3) How old are you?
4) What race do you belong to?


Thanks.

[Shermana]

Isaiah 40


15Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket;

they are regarded as dust on the scales;

he weighs the islands as though they were fine dust.

16Lebanon is not sufficient for altar fires,

nor its animals enough for burnt offerings.

17Before him all the nations are as nothing;

they are regarded by him as worthless

and less than nothing.


("Nations" = non-Israelites).

The purpose of being a "Graft" means you conform to the original tree.

[Sum1sGruj]

Apparently you don't know how they work, because according to the rules, you are NOT immune to requests for evidence for your claims, and you are not immune from using ad hominem arguments, if you can't actually disprove my points, simply honorably concede. You must retract all claims you cannot support.

I am also assuming you meant to insult me by calling me an "internet warrior" as if that somehow renders me not a debater and my points invalid.

And yes, I DO Think you care since you ask. A lot apparently.

You are the one producing ad hominems to myself and many, many other people. That is why I called you ridiculous. I do not play this childish game of 'lets see who can make the other a bigot'.
Simply put, just because you make a claim does not mean someone must counter it for it to be false. In this case, you may as well be saying the sky is green. I told you that a little bit of reading in the NT would show your idea to be wrong, and you tell me no, that I should waste my time explaining how your obviously wrong idea is., wrong. The rules do not equate respecting others with mandatory adherence.
Saying I should 'honorably concede' just makes you look insecure, and while it is rude it is also laughable.
I'm sure the moderator(s) on this site are mature and likely do not condone such ridiculous statements by you, so do not hide behind their rules. It adds to your whispering insecurities.
Perhaps if you were not so rude and infuriating, I would have explained such things in further detail, but instead I'm just going to enjoy letting other Christians have at you.

It's been nice chatting with you, now go along and flaunt your false victory as I've seen others do, all with the same trash theologies. Goodbye.

[Shermana]

Apparently you don't know how they work, because according to the rules, you are NOT immune to requests for evidence for your claims, and you are not immune from using ad hominem arguments, if you can't actually disprove my points, simply honorably concede. You must retract all claims you cannot support.

I am also assuming you meant to insult me by calling me an "internet warrior" as if that somehow renders me not a debater and my points invalid.

And yes, I DO Think you care since you ask. A lot apparently.

You are the one producing ad hominems to myself and many, many other people. That is why I called you ridiculous. I do not play this childish game of 'lets see who can make the other a bigot'.
Simply put, just because you make a claim does not mean someone must counter it for it to be false. In this case, you may as well be saying the sky is green. I told you that a little bit of reading in the NT would show your idea to be wrong, and you tell me no, that I should waste my time explaining how your obviously wrong idea is., wrong. The rules do not equate respecting others with mandatory adherence.
Saying I should 'honorably concede' just makes you look insecure, and while it is rude it is also laughable.
I'm sure the moderator(s) on this site are mature and likely do not condone such ridiculous statements by you, so do not hide behind their rules. It adds to your whispering insecurities.
Perhaps if you were not so rude and infuriating, I would have explained such things in further detail, but instead I'm just going to enjoy letting other Christians have at you.

It's been nice chatting with you, now go along and flaunt your false victory as I've seen others do, all with the same trash theologies. Goodbye.

Oh really, can you quote a single Ad hominem I've made? Telling me that I'm rude and infuriating because I ask you to prove your claims with a source is not a substitute for a) Avoiding my points b) Refusing to discuss verses I bring up c) Avoiding questions d) Sourcing your claim.

Also, calling other people' Theologies "Trash" without actually bothering to debunk them or back your own claims doesn't work either.

If my beliefs are an insult to the majority of Christians, that's their problem. What if their beliefs are an insult to mine? Is this a matter of appeal to majority and emotion as an excuse to ignore verses like Isaiah 40:15-17?

Telling me that a little bit of reading of the NT would prove me wrong does not prove me wrong. I hope you realize this.

I appreciate your concern for what you consider to be my "insecurities" because of my interpretations and beliefs, perhaps one who refuses to back their claim and goes off on rants about how they've been insulted by someone's interpretation MIGHT just MIGHT have an insecurity or two but I will not give my assessment here.

You claim you have much experience on boards, and you think the people you consider to have "ridiculous" beliefs don't deserve to be treated with any respect, that happen to insult yours because they think yours are wrong, my assumption is that this experience is on debate boards that ban people who don't adhere to the specific Theological doctrine of the mods? The fact that you think you don't have to disprove claims or back your own claims cements this assumption.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Warning
Please review our Rules.

You are dead wrong in your claims, because you are speaking against what is common knowledge and which one can simply open up the Bible and see the fallacy you are presenting.

What is obvious to you may not be obvious to others. Please abide by the rules and support your assertions rather than ask others to support them for you.

You are a blatant insult to Christians because you are trying to put yourself above Christians. That is blasphemy.

Please address the ideas being presented and avoid directly insulting other debaters.

Like I said, please do not bring that garbage to me. I'm done with this thread.

What did Jesus say about lying ? I count three posts by Sum1sGruj in this thread subsequent to this .

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Sum1sGruj]

This is outrageous. What is the point of moderation when the moderation feeds the fire on these threads?
'You an unworthy Christian, as I am a Jew and you should heed me'. That is what this thread has amounted to. It's very indignant, and I am breaking the rules simply for telling another they are ridiculous and that I am not adhering to their demands to back myself up?

like a Canaanite dog maybe?

Well, since moderation condones such, allow me to be my own liberator:

YOUR OWN PEOPLE PUT JESUS ON THIS CROSS. YOUR OWN PEOPLE USE THE ROMANS AS A SCAPEGOAT WHEN THE TRUTH IS SO VISIBLE. YOUR OWN PEOPLE HATE CHRISTIANS BECAUSE THROUGHOUT HISTORY, THEY HAVE PRETTY MUCH HATED EVERYONE! YOUR PEOPLE HAVE MISTAKEN YOUR DUTY BESET BY GOD AS BEING KINGS AMONG MEN, AND TO THIS DAY YOU ALL SEEK TO ONE-UP EVERY CONGREGATION YOU SEE.

And now it has finally been brought to my doorstep. Well now, let's see what you make of it.

Isaiah 10:20-22
n that day the remnant of Israel, the survivors of the house of Jacob, will no longer rely on him who struck them down but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel.

God is fulfilling a promise from a long time ago. It is a liberation, not a crowning.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 5:1
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

When it comes to Christ, Jews are just mere people like anyone else other then the fulfillment God has promised them. In fact, that is half the reason they crucified him, because they wanted a warrior.

Jesus is a completion of the Law, not a replacement, but with the completion came a lot of replacement. It's just that simple. Otherwise, don't just stop at the idea of the death penalty, but also condone stoning to death anyone who uses God's name in vain.
I see a lot of rubbish on the contrary and it's false. There are not too many things that still stand outside of the Commandments and sexual immoralities within the Law. You seem to be putting those things over the teachings of Jesus and it makes you more Mosaic then actually of Christ. Muslims think Jesus was a mere prophet and even they do not have such a selfish view.
People do not adhere to Jews, but to God, and you would do well to heed that.


What more needs to be said? Your idea is absurd, and is an abomination to Abrahamic religion. Good day to you.

[Shermana]

'You an unworthy Christian, as I am a Jew and you should heed me'.

It seems your problem is my Messianic Jewish Theology, I have plenty of threads on why you're still supposed to obey the Law. And if you have "plenty of Messianic Jewish friends who say differently", that's nice' we're a VERY diverse movement and my position is the minority (though far from unique). If my personal beliefs are an insult to yours, once again, that is a COMPLIMENT, but telling me this is not disproving them. And if you're going to paraphrase a non existent quote, don't forget your "are"s and "am"s. I sense angry speed typing....

You say Muslims don't insult Christians with their ideas of Superiority, that is hilarious while you accuse me of being supremacist, they think you're going to hell most generally. I at least think you will be among the "least" in Heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20). What if I said that your belief that you don't have to actually do anything for your salvation was insulting?

Telling my idea is absurd is sometimes okay IF you actually disprove it instead of unsubstantially blowing off steam with insults. Calling my beliefs an abomination is another story. If I believe that a particular belief like the Trinity or Lawlessness is an abomination, I will explain why in detail instead of firing off a few attempts at insults.

Stonings are only allowable in the Holy Land under a Politically Autonomous Sanhedrin, otherwise, the General Concensus is that "They will be put to death" means a Providential death. Also, only some crimes actually require to be stoned with stones specifically, there is argument over whether these are execution commands as opposed to when it simply says "They shall be put to death" as in Heaven will do it. Regardless though, do you think that you are now allowed to commit incest? If not, is it because Paul warns about "Sexual immorality"? Wouldn't that still be a part of the Law? Are you saying you are now allowed to break those Sexual Taboos? What's the problem, if you're saved?

The word "Completion" in the case of "Telos" is not "Termination" but "Finishing touches". He specifically said "I did not come to abolish the Law', yet so many people seem to directly ignore this and flat out say "He abolished the Law". My follow up question is generally: "Does this mean Christians can now marry their sisters? If not, where does it say you can't, and why?"

Your answer to the verse "I have not come for anyone but the Lost Sheep of Israel" is basically a rant how gentiles are now accepted, ignoring what I said about grafts coming to the Tree of Israel. Do you think Isaiah 40:15-17 no longer applies?

Peter's Vision in Acts 10 was to show Gentiles as dirty until they accept the Christ and OBEY THE COMMANDMENTS. They are no longer "unclean" once they graft themselves to the tree.




I recommend reading 1 John 3. "Sin is lawlessness...he who keeps on sinning does not know christ". Pretty simple. Cross it out with a Sharpie or use some cherry picked out of context verse by Paul to negate it and other verses like Matthew 7:22-23 and 1 John 5:3 if you like.

1 John 5:3 is pretty simple, if you don't love G-d, you won't obey his commandments. Easy. You can base your own theology based on "mainstream doctrine" and a few cherry picked verse, I'll base my theology on the entirety.

And continuing to avoid the issue of why Jesus calls the Canaanite a woman a dog does not make your case any better.
Neither does ignoring Isaiah 40:15-17. But I am used to people ignoring vast swathes of scripture to achieve their point, nothing new.

I assume you have no problem with being known as 'The Least" among the kingdom? I assume you also think "Fulfilled the Law" means "Abolished". I guess you think the "Lawless" in Matthew 7:22-23 are the Jews or something?

[Shermana]

"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God,"

If you don't actually regard Jesus as what he was supposed to be in Jewish terms, in the scriptural terms, I believe you don't actually acknowledge Jesus as Christ. This verse must be contrasted to 1 John 3. If you don't know what Christ means, then you can't truly acknowledge Jesus as Christ. If you say "I believe Jesus is Christ", does that mean that you obey his teachings and commandments, or do you believe that part is not necessary?

If you are a fan of 1 John 5, you should read verse 3. One of my all time favorite verses.


And when the Canaanite woman who is called a dog shows her faith, she is shown mercy for accepting her place as a dog (compared to an Israelite) and thus rewarded with a miracle. If you can't accept this, that's not my problem. If this insults you, that's not my problem.

"He who keeps on sinning does not know Christ"....now what could that POSSIBLY mean?

[Shermana]

1. YOUR OWN PEOPLE PUT JESUS ON THIS CROSS.

And it was my own people who were the entirety of the original Church until the Johny come lately self-declared-apostle Paul stepped in and tried telling the original Jerusalem and Antioch Church they were wrong. The original Church was only made up of Jews, and spread quickly among Jews to the point that they sent Saul in to crack down on them.

2. YOUR OWN PEOPLE USE THE ROMANS AS A SCAPEGOAT WHEN THE TRUTH IS SO VISIBLE.

What is this supposed to mean? If I'm not mistaken, this sounds Mel Gibson-esque. So am I supposed to be blamed for it? Is the Rabbi down the street to be blamed for it? Was he there? Are you implying the ENTIRE Jewish population was in Jerusalem that day calling for his death? Do you think "Let his blood be on our children" means every single Jew as opposed to the ones there?

3. YOUR OWN PEOPLE HATE CHRISTIANS BECAUSE THROUGHOUT HISTORY,

Being tortured and massacred in the name of Christ is not a good way to make people love the religion, and neither is presenting the Jewish Saviour as a Lawless heathen. The Trinity also doesn't do much help in the representation part. You should see what most Christians I talk to say about Muslims!!

4. THEY HAVE PRETTY MUCH HATED EVERYONE! YOUR PEOPLE HAVE MISTAKEN YOUR DUTY BESET BY GOD AS BEING KINGS AMONG MEN, AND TO THIS DAY YOU ALL SEEK TO ONE-UP EVERY CONGREGATION YOU SEE.

Yeah, we've pretty much hated anyone who hates us and says our beleifs are an insult to theirs. It's an historical thing. We usually end up the survivors though while the empires that don't like us tend to burn. We are in fact considered "kings among men" in our scriptures, whether you think the "OT is abolished" or not. That's not supremacism, that's Biblicism. When Paul says "Neither Jew nor Greek" he is referring to gentiles who have grafted to the Tree of Israel and obey the Law. If you think Paul is lawless, I have a few threads on the issue. Two commonly ignored verses are Romans 2:13 and Galatians 3:12 because they radically change the context of what most want it to say/

Why the caps by the way, I like to use caps on one or two words for emphasize, but is this anger I'm sensing here? If so, please carry on, I love angry replies!

And for Isaiah 10

Isaiah 10:20-22
n that day the remnant of Israel, the survivors of the house of Jacob, will no longer rely on him who struck them down but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel.

Anyone can see that this verse is about not being reliant on their Bablyonian masters and being set free from exile.

[Sum1sGruj]

And it was my own people who were the entirety of the original Church until the Johny come lately self-declared-apostle Paul stepped in and tried telling the original Jerusalem and Antioch Church they were wrong. The original Church was only made up of Jews, and spread quickly among Jews to the point that they sent Saul in to crack down on them.

And the Apostle Paul is rejected by Jews because he did not condone exclusiveness to Jews. Nor did Jesus for that matter., not in the grand scheme of things.

What is this supposed to mean? If I'm not mistaken, this sounds Mel Gibson-esque. So am I supposed to be blamed for it? Is the Rabbi down the street to be blamed for it? Was he there? Are you implying the ENTIRE Jewish population was in Jerusalem that day calling for his death? Do you think "Let his blood be on our children" means every single Jew as opposed to the ones there?

No, but the fact remains that some of your own ancestors were directly responsible. Some found it an outrage, some believed he was Christ., but some simply wanted him dead.

Being tortured and massacred in the name of Christ is not a good way to make people love the religion, and neither is presenting the Jewish Saviour as a Lawless heathen. The Trinity also doesn't do much help in the representation part. You should see what most Christians I talk to say about Muslims!!

And that still does not give you a right to denounce all Christians. That would be called being hypocritical. On one end you are contemptuous of how Jews have been treated by many Christians, and so you resort to fighting fire with fire.

Yeah, we've pretty much hated anyone who hates us and says our beleifs are an insult to theirs. It's an historical thing. We usually end up the survivors though while the empires that don't like us tend to burn. We are in fact considered "kings among men" in our scriptures, whether you think the "OT is abolished" or not. That's not supremacism, that's Biblicism. When Paul says "Neither Jew nor Greek" he is referring to gentiles who have grafted to the Tree of Israel and obey the Law. If you think Paul is lawless, I have a few threads on the issue. Two commonly ignored verses are Romans 2:13 and Galatians 3:12 because they radically change the context of what most want it to say/

Rather, you all have just hated. Most of you, anyways. You all are so full of bitterness and contempt that it has blinded Jews to what is truth. Most Jews denounce Christ altogether and the ones that are 'messianic' have the same stubborn approach, just in a different setting of belief.

Why the caps by the way, I like to use caps on one or two words for emphasize, but is this anger I'm sensing here? If so, please carry on, I love angry replies!

It's not anger. The all caps is to make sure it gets through. The only thing I have been slightly irritated of is that the mods are letting you belittle Christians and fancying yourself superior simply because you are Jewish.

Anyone can see that this verse is about not being reliant on their Bablyonian masters and being set free from exile.

Yes, liberation. Not kings among men. Liberation. As I said, your idea of being a superior or favored race is and always has been unfounded.
How can you believe in Jesus and not even heed his teachings? Syncretism is doomed to be false if it ignores any of either side.

The fact of the matter is that I refused to debate this because I knew I would end up having to force my hand and telling you what you will illegitimately label as 'anti-semetic' but you know what? The only one being discriminating is you, and I have voiced that up and down this thread and to no avail.
I keep going against my word as to leaving this thread, and that is because I do not believe in Abrahamic adversity. But I can see that no matter how much reason tries to avail, somebody has to come and hurt that idea altogether and based on pretty much nothing except unfounded extremism.

[Shermana]

"As I said, your idea of being a superior or favored race is and always has been unfounded. "


So you refuse to read Isaiah 40:15-17? Just because you pretend the verse doesn't exist doesn't mean you can write off someone's belief about it, just like with the Canaanite woman.

You accuse me of not obeying Jesus' teachings, how? Do I have to point out where you aren't?

I appreciate your attempt to belittle my beliefs as if I only believe them because I am Jewish as if I haven't used any verses to justify my position.

You accuse me of being filled with bitterness and contempt, try removing the Plank from thine eye.

Rather, you all have just hated.

This reply, in relation to my answer, is indisputably Gibson-esque.

And that still does not give you a right to denounce all Christians

I denounced doctrines. I did not denounce individuals, except perhaps those who push and defend these doctrines I consider "heretical". What right do you have to denounce my beliefs that "Ye are gods" means what it means and not just a few individual magistrates.